Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Wayniac wrote:
I despise soup from a matched play perspective. For narrative it makes sense, but for matched it's just min/maxing and beardy/cheesy combos.

Isn’t it beautiful you can play at your FLGS however you want but come to a GT and such, expect to face, as you say, “beardy/cheesy lists”

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I despise soup from a matched play perspective. For narrative it makes sense, but for matched it's just min/maxing and beardy/cheesy combos.

Isn’t it beautiful you can play at your FLGS however you want but come to a GT and such, expect to face, as you say, “beardy/cheesy lists”

When that mentality bleeds into the FLGS though it's a problem. It kills everything else, including all non min/maxed play because nobody wants to get crushed by the min/max list, so it becomes a Looney Tunes-esque escalation (you know, that scene with Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd chasing each other with bigger weapons each time)

Wayniac wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
I despise soup from a matched play perspective. For narrative it makes sense, but for matched it's just min/maxing and beardy/cheesy combos.

Isn’t it beautiful you can play at your FLGS however you want but come to a GT and such, expect to face, as you say, “beardy/cheesy lists”

When that mentality bleeds into the FLGS though it's a problem. It kills everything else.

Now that sounds like a personal game store problem. That’s when you need to talk to your opponent. I have no problem
Bringing a wraith based iyanden list if someone says they want a casual matched play game. Or pure harlequins. Or my Ulthwe list. But if someone is up for a little practice competitive wise, I’ll soup up all day long. Just use communication. Without it, you can’t be mad at your opponent

Sadly communication seems to be a dirty word, and people want to roll up with nothing more than a points limit :(

Wayniac wrote:
Sadly communication seems to be a dirty word, and people want to roll up with nothing more than a points limit :(

Sadly again this sounds like you don’t have a great game store you frequent

Behold my Militia/Hellflayer "min/maxing" and "beardy/cheesy combos" and tremble.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Moriarty wrote:
HI all,

thanks for the input.

I appreciate that there are issues with the different power levels of different Codices, and that people like to think they are competing against 'the best', and that the situation is unlikely to change.

However, the fact that there are already restrictions on list building (as per the CP rules) shows that GW envision some sort of level playing field for the game. My contention is that allowing soup in tournaments does not give a level playing field, because it is not available to every Codex.

If the rule was that a player could select any unit from any Codex and still claim 'Battle Forged' CP, that would be fair. If the rule was that a player could only select units from his chosen Codex, that would be fair. Allowing some players' factions to choose from multiple Codices, but not others, is not fair in my opinion.

Please feel free to change my mind.

If, after everything that has been said about actual competitive play, you still don’t understand that Warhammer is not about “being fair” and is about using your rules to the best of your ability with list building and utilization, then you are just being stubborn with the whole “change my mind, ya know like that YouTube channel” concept.

What it is currently about and what you think would make for a better, healthier game are not the same thing. Being more fair and using the rules to the best of your ability are not mutually exclusive, and in a tighter more balanced game list building would be more of a skill. One thing about competition is that people generally want things to be fair. Which if money and time were not things would be true as everyone can buy and build the same army so have the ability to make things fair. That said in a hobby where a portion of the experience is aesthetic people want to be able to have faction choice not be the deciding factor in a game.

Breng77 wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Moriarty wrote:
HI all,

thanks for the input.

I appreciate that there are issues with the different power levels of different Codices, and that people like to think they are competing against 'the best', and that the situation is unlikely to change.

However, the fact that there are already restrictions on list building (as per the CP rules) shows that GW envision some sort of level playing field for the game. My contention is that allowing soup in tournaments does not give a level playing field, because it is not available to every Codex.

If the rule was that a player could select any unit from any Codex and still claim 'Battle Forged' CP, that would be fair. If the rule was that a player could only select units from his chosen Codex, that would be fair. Allowing some players' factions to choose from multiple Codices, but not others, is not fair in my opinion.

Please feel free to change my mind.

If, after everything that has been said about actual competitive play, you still don’t understand that Warhammer is not about “being fair” and is about using your rules to the best of your ability with list building and utilization, then you are just being stubborn with the whole “change my mind, ya know like that YouTube channel” concept.

What it is currently about and what you think would make for a better, healthier game are not the same thing. Being more fair and using the rules to the best of your ability are not mutually exclusive, and in a tighter more balanced game list building would be more of a skill. One thing about competition is that people generally want things to be fair. Which if money and time were not things would be true as everyone can buy and build the same army so have the ability to make things fair. That said in a hobby where a portion of the experience is aesthetic people want to be able to have faction choice not be the deciding factor in a game.

Ah I believe you are looking for the section “narrative play” or your nearest friendly local game store. Dakka actually has a store finder, check it out and have fun!

glad to know you are a condescending TFG...now I can ignore you posts....the fact that you confuse competition and tactics with meta chasing and having unbalanced factions tells me allI need to know...

Wanting a better competitive format is not the same as wanting narrative games.

Breng77 wrote:
glad to know you are a condescending TFG...now I can ignore you posts....the fact that you confuse competition and tactics with meta chasing and having unbalanced factions tells me allI need to know...

TFG? For accepting the competitive format? Better? I remember when it was eldar and that was it. The closest thing was necrons and even they didn’t hold a candle to eldar. That was 7th. Now we have orks, tau, imperium styled list variations, eldar soup list variations (such as the guy who runs wyches), and chaos topping. That is a good spread compared to later editions. Like holy feth are you people ever happy. Every single codex will never be relevant in a given edition, so be happy when a decent chunk are. Also glad you’re ignoring me, one less narrative nazi trying to barge his way into the competitive scene with “everything should be fair”

Ahh, return of the best, most useless argument on Dakka, it's been what, 2-3 hours?

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Ahh, return of the best, most useless argument on Dakka, it's been what, 2-3 hours?

You have no idea how accurately this depicts what some of these people are saying

So right after GW nerfed hard the most popular soup builds, people don't bother even wait whether this has any effect and want soup still to be banned. Pretty disgusting. Soup should be a valid option, it is fun and allows great freedom in choosing your models. And of course there are many minifactions which pretty much depend on the soup to be able to function at all.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Ah I believe you are looking for the section “narrative play” or your nearest friendly local game store. Dakka actually has a store finder, check it out and have fun!

Again, it's impossible in practice to play anything but Matched Play rules unless you play what effectively boils down to garagehammer.

Which is, I would wager, very few of us. Most of us rely on pick-up games at clubs or stores, where everyone uses Matched Play rules.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
glad to know you are a condescending TFG...now I can ignore you posts....the fact that you confuse competition and tactics with meta chasing and having unbalanced factions tells me allI need to know...

TFG? For accepting the competitive format? Better? I remember when it was eldar and that was it. The closest thing was necrons and even they didn’t hold a candle to eldar. That was 7th. Now we have orks, tau, imperium styled list variations, eldar soup list variations (such as the guy who runs wyches), and chaos topping. That is a good spread compared to later editions. Like holy feth are you people ever happy. Every single codex will never be relevant in a given edition, so be happy when a decent chunk are. Also glad you’re ignoring me, one less narrative nazi trying to barge his way into the competitive scene with “everything should be fair”

No TFG for your condescending attitude. I don't see how wanting every faction to be relevant is a bad thing. I never said the edition was the worst it has been, I said I'd like to see better and your attitude that the way it is is the way it is, and restrictions could not possibly help (they might not, I think without changes to the game to balance things eliminating soup doesn't help things). They have added several restrictions to the game since the begging of the edition that have changed how lists were made. My desire for every codex to be relevant is largley because I like some factions and would like to be able to compete with those, and I largely am to a level I am satisfied with (knowing lots of top level players and playing against them I don't have the time or focus on the game to win the ITC), I win local tournies or place highly when I play. That doesn't mean I don't think the game could be better. TO me your attitude that the game is somehow better because things are not more balanced, makes me think you have the time to chase the meta, and don't want those that don't to compete.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
So right after GW nerfed hard the most popular soup builds, people don't bother even wait whether this has any effect and want soup still to be banned. Pretty disgusting. Soup should be a valid option, it is fun and allows great freedom in choosing your models. And of course there are many minifactions which pretty much depend on the soup to be able to function at all.

I largely agree, my preference has always been giving a bonus for limiting your faction, but not to the point of negating soup.

I have stated in previous posts in this thread why you feel the meta is good right boss

Breng77 wrote:
TO me your attitude that the game is somehow better because things are not more balanced, makes me think you have the time to chase the meta, and don't want those that don't to compete.

How about let the process play out. GW went through a cycle to get codexes out for almost all the factions in short order. That involved getting 8th ed rules in place for all existing models quickly. In a few cases they refreshed the model line and released new rules that generally people seem to think have addressed some issues with specific factions. It's clear that the pattern is going to be more conflict theater sourcebooks like the Vigilus series, which will expand factions and provide new play options for them. I suspect eventually we'll get some sourcebook about a battle between Grey Knights and Necrons on some distant backwater world nobody's ever heard of, it will include new units and stratagems that improve their ability to compete.

But yes, the expectation for a print game of this magnitude that all factions will be always balanced all the time, or burn the factory, is perhaps a tad unrealistic.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
glad to know you are a condescending TFG...now I can ignore you posts....the fact that you confuse competition and tactics with meta chasing and having unbalanced factions tells me allI need to know...

TFG? For accepting the competitive format? Better? I remember when it was eldar and that was it. The closest thing was necrons and even they didn’t hold a candle to eldar. That was 7th. Now we have orks, tau, imperium styled list variations, eldar soup list variations (such as the guy who runs wyches), and chaos topping. That is a good spread compared to later editions. Like holy feth are you people ever happy. Every single codex will never be relevant in a given edition, so be happy when a decent chunk are. Also glad you’re ignoring me, one less narrative nazi trying to barge his way into the competitive scene with “everything should be fair”

You're being called TFG because you're replying with "LOLOLOL PLAY NARRATIVE" to someone who is specifically asking for improvements to competitive balance, not story-based games.

Also, narrative means story-focused, not just matched play with less optimized armies, and your GW apologetics are just ridiculous. Stop making excuses for poor balance, we should not be content with "it's less bad than 7th".

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Soup makes for a more competitive army. A more competitive army means a better game... competitively. Hence the term, competitive army. I think that should assist you in understanding?

That would make a fair trade-off for me: Do I take the units of my faction more often, or do I not do that and allow for other options.

Terrible idea as it does not affect necrons, tau, or other armies that have a simple one codex. Soup will continue to exist, as stated above simply because GW knows it makes them money. Thank goodness, because this game would be a lot more boring if it was back in the old days. Beautiful thing? Play older editions if you want to play mono faction. Or agree with your opponent. Wanna play competitive? Expect anything. Case closed moving on.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

 Stux wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Your argument for not playing soup is it’s not.. a level playing field? That makes no sense.. competitively I would want to face the best of the best that way if I won I would know I played the best possible against everyone.

What? This doesn't make sense to me. You aren't playing 'the best of the best' currently, you're playing against the best possible within list building restrictions. This is just another restriction.

Or do you want to be playing against armies composed of nothing but Custodes Bike Captains and stuff like that? Because that's probably the sort of list you'd get for a true best of the best unrestricted.

I’m sorry maybe you didn’t understand what I was saying. Soup makes for a more competitive army. A more competitive army means a better game... competitively. Hence the term, competitive army. I think that should assist you in understanding?

Ok, I just don't think that is true. More powerful is not the same as more competitive. We could make more powerful armies than we currently have by removing restrictions, and I don't think that would improve the quality of games. In the same way, I think there are some restrictions we could add that would improve the quality of games.

Competitive to me doesn't mean high power, it means balanced and with meaningful strategic and tactical decisions. Power is only relative after all.

Ah you’re talking competitive for every army! Ok. Well unfortunately that’s not the concern of GW. OP is saying mono codex should be what is used for competitive play. I’m saying competitive play should mean.. being competitive. Me souping together the same faction as a whole (all are aeldari) or an imperium player using multiple imperium units from codex is competitive..

In all honesty if you like the older style of restriction, as I said you are free to play older editions that were that way back in the day. Or discuss with your opponent about using mono codex or different restrictions. However yes, in TODAYS rules and restrictions/meta, it is what is correct and good. I love soup, and I don’t feel there should be a down side for TAKKNG soup.

If, after everything that has been said about actual competitive play, you still don’t understand that Warhammer is not about “being fair” and is about using your rules to the best of your ability with list building and utilization, then you are just being stubborn with the whole “change my mind, ya know like that YouTube channel” concept.

Pain4Pleasure wrote:
Isn’t it beautiful you can play at your FLGS however you want but come to a GT and such, expect to face, as you say, “beardy/cheesy lists”

Pain4Pleasure wrote:I have stated in previous posts in this thread why you feel the meta is good right boss

actually until your most recent post you had not doe so, you just said Soup is most competitive,I like soup. If you don't like it you should play old editions or narrative at your LGS.

Personally I will always push for more balance it is better for the game. I think big picture Soup hurts that idea, but right now soup keeps many more options competitive than removing it would.

 Peregrine wrote:

Pain4Pleasure wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
glad to know you are a condescending TFG...now I can ignore you posts....the fact that you confuse competition and tactics with meta chasing and having unbalanced factions tells me allI need to know...

TFG? For accepting the competitive format? Better? I remember when it was eldar and that was it. The closest thing was necrons and even they didn’t hold a candle to eldar. That was 7th. Now we have orks, tau, imperium styled list variations, eldar soup list variations (such as the guy who runs wyches), and chaos topping. That is a good spread compared to later editions. Like holy feth are you people ever happy. Every single codex will never be relevant in a given edition, so be happy when a decent chunk are. Also glad you’re ignoring me, one less narrative nazi trying to barge his way into the competitive scene with “everything should be fair”

You're being called TFG because you're replying with "LOLOLOL PLAY NARRATIVE" to someone who is specifically asking for improvements to competitive balance, not story-based games.

Also, narrative means story-focused, not just matched play with less optimized armies, and your GW apologetics are just ridiculous. Stop making excuses for poor balance, we should not be content with "it's less bad than 7th".

How about how it’s less bad than 6th, 5th, 4th and etc. what my point is, is soup can make I relevant units in mono factions relevant, due to the fact it opens up a wider role for combinations of effects that units can utilize. It is healthy for the game (and of course GW pockets which is why we all know it won’t go away.) as far as having all factions balanced.. I just don’t see that happening. I get it that it’s sad but with all the armies we have and will have in the future it will make it progressively harder to do so. I feel players should be happy that top tournaments are showing more than a hand full of separate codex in their listings. Like... that’s a wonderful freaking thing. That’s why I’m upset.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
TO me your attitude that the game is somehow better because things are not more balanced, makes me think you have the time to chase the meta, and don't want those that don't to compete.

How about let the process play out. GW went through a cycle to get codexes out for almost all the factions in short order. That involved getting 8th ed rules in place for all existing models quickly. In a few cases they refreshed the model line and released new rules that generally people seem to think have addressed some issues with specific factions. It's clear that the pattern is going to be more conflict theater sourcebooks like the Vigilus series, which will expand factions and provide new play options for them. I suspect eventually we'll get some sourcebook about a battle between Grey Knights and Necrons on some distant backwater world nobody's ever heard of, it will include new units and stratagems that improve their ability to compete.

But yes, the expectation for a print game of this magnitude that all factions will be always balanced all the time, or burn the factory, is perhaps a tad unrealistic.

no problem I don't expect fixes overnight

 Peregrine wrote:

You're being called TFG because you're replying with "LOLOLOL PLAY NARRATIVE" to someone who is specifically asking for improvements to competitive balance, not story-based games.

Then again, OP's entire premise was telling "LOL, play narrative" to the soup players...

 Crimson wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

You're being called TFG because you're replying with "LOLOLOL PLAY NARRATIVE" to someone who is specifically asking for improvements to competitive balance, not story-based games.

Then again, OP's entire premise was telling "LOL, play narrative" to the soup players...

Then again, there's really nothing "matched" about matched play... More like "Mix-and-match" play for min/maxing.

 skchsan wrote:
Then again, there's really nothing "matched" about matched play... More like "Mix-and-match" play for min/maxing.

Well done, you clearly understood Crimson's point and demonstrated it perfectly.

Sorry, think you have the wrong end of the stick.

I was stating the opinion that, as only some factions had the soup option, they had an unfair advantage in tournaments on those factions that could not soup.

Following input from the forum, I put forward the idea that it might be fair to allow any player to soup, using any factions units, or allow no player to soup.

I completely accept that the chances of GW balancing the game is heading toward zero, given the number of books/campaigns/FAQs etc that are available.

That is why I thought that soup might be better left as a Narrative Only option. Would that mean that tournaments were less fair, or more?

Please, feel free to change my mind.

Moriarty wrote:
Sorry, think you have the wrong end of the stick.

I was stating the opinion that, as only some factions had the soup option, they had an unfair advantage in tournaments on those factions that could not soup.

Following input from the forum, I put forward the idea that it might be fair to allow any player to soup, using any factions units, or allow no player to soup.

I completely accept that the chances of GW balancing the game is heading toward zero, given the number of books/campaigns/FAQs etc that are available.

That is why I thought that soup might be better left as a Narrative Only option. Would that mean that tournaments were less fair, or more?

Please, feel free to change my mind.

Nobody's going to change your mind, make it up on your own.

There are two camps on these boards.

1. Soup is bad, nothing will ever fix it.
2. Soup is part of the game, get over it.

Pick one.

GW will never get rid of soup, it sells models. They are a business, soup makes money. GW will never advocate removing it from the tournament scene, as that might affect sales. They will turn a blind eye towards smaller tournaments that have their own rules, but in pretty much every official tournament where they have a presence, soup will be in effect.

Moriarty wrote:
Sorry, think you have the wrong end of the stick.

I was stating the opinion that, as only some factions had the soup option, they had an unfair advantage in tournaments on those factions that could not soup.

Following input from the forum, I put forward the idea that it might be fair to allow any player to soup, using any factions units, or allow no player to soup.

I completely accept that the chances of GW balancing the game is heading toward zero, given the number of books/campaigns/FAQs etc that are available.

That is why I thought that soup might be better left as a Narrative Only option. Would that mean that tournaments were less fair, or more?

Please, feel free to change my mind.

I do agree that competitive scene should revolve around monodexs to even the playing field out as much as possible, rather than being a showcase of min/max armies.

Competitive scenes should be about bringing to the table absolute best within a given limiting parameter and see who comes out on top. To me, souping in competitive scene is like a game of soccer (football for those who call it that), but you are allowed to use your hands.

But yes, you are entitled to your own opinion about anti-soup just as much as people have theirs as pro-soup.

Not necessarily anti-soup, just thought that perhaps it should be something for all factions in tournament, or none. Would GW make more money allowing any player/faction to take any unit from any Codex for their army, and still benefit from CP's etc?

If soup is the best option, for the best players, who want to win tournaments, is there therefore only one army to play? Should the game be chess rather than 40k, as both players then have the same pieces to play with?

If the rules change, and suddenly soup is disadvantaged against every other army, do soup players become worse players overnight? Or in the advantage of soup making them 'competitive'?

Just asking.

Moriarty wrote:
Not necessarily anti-soup, just thought that perhaps it should be something for all factions in tournament, or none. Would GW make more money allowing any player/faction to take any unit from any Codex for their army, and still benefit from CP's etc?

If soup is the best option, for the best players, who want to win tournaments, is there therefore only one army to play? Should the game be chess rather than 40k, as both players then have the same pieces to play with?

If the rules change, and suddenly soup is disadvantaged against every other army, do soup players become worse players overnight? Or in the advantage of soup making them 'competitive'?

Just asking.

There is no binary answer to this.

T'au won a tournament recently, mono-factions win tournaments. You could delve into whether this was a result of a specific tournament format or a well-played faction. GW is slowly tweaking balance, and each pass they make has been bringing things closer to parity, despite what myself and many others bitch about on these boards.

I know you want some kind of definitive answer on this, but there is not one. The situation is slowly improving, I'm inclined to let the whole thing play out.